Top Romney strategist: No regrets, baby

posted at 5:11 pm on November 28, 2012 by Allahpundit

People are already tearing this up on Twitter and in the comments to the Headlines item. A few points. One: In which alternate universe was Romney not supported by “D.C.’s green-room crowd”?

I appreciate that Mitt Romney was never a favorite of D.C.’s green-room crowd or, frankly, of many politicians. That’s why, a year ago, so few of those people thought that he would win the Republican nomination. But that was indicative not of any failing of Romney’s but of how out of touch so many were in Washington and in the professional political class. Nobody liked Romney except voters. What began in a small field in New Hampshire grew into a national movement. It wasn’t our campaign, it was Romney. He bested the competition in debates, and though he was behind almost every candidate in the GOP primary at one time or the other, he won the nomination and came very close to winning the presidency.

It was the “green-room crowd” that insisted Romney would be, and had to be, nominated because he was the only guy in the GOP field who was sufficiently well funded, well organized, and moderate to give Obama problems in a general election. And they may have been right; for all his faults, I’m still not convinced that anyone else who ran last year would have done better than Mitt on November 6. Why Stevens feels obliged to ignore that chief credential, his alleged electability, in favor of some bizarre narrative here about a grassroots “movement” of Romneymania slowly building around the candidate, I don’t know. There was nothing resembling a movement until October, after the game-changing debate in Denver and the final frenzy of the campaign gave Republicans new hope that Romney really might find a way to torpedo Hopenchange after all. Before then, people were making jokes like this. In fact, the very truth of what Stevens says about Romney trailing virtually every other candidate in the primary field at one time or another puts the lie to the idea of Romneymania. The reason everyone else, including Herman Cain, did a stint as a frontrunner is because so many grassroots Republicans were loath to nominate the architect of RomneyCare. Eventually he simply outspent and out-organized the competition, and that was that. But let’s not use his own base’s ambivalence towards him for most of the campaign as some sort of testament to his resilience.

Two: I’m not sure what his point is here.

On Nov. 6, Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income. That means he carried the majority of middle-class voters. While John McCain lost white voters younger than 30 by 10 points, Romney won those voters by seven points, a 17-point shift. Obama received 4½million fewer voters in 2012 than 2008, and Romney got more votes than McCain.

Would you consider a young adult making $40,000 a year “middle class”? If so then, per the data, the claim that Romney won a majority of the “middle class” becomes more complicated. Besides, to suggest that Romney was a hit with the middle class because he won a majority of the 50-99K crowd is misleading. He got utterly destroyed among black and Latino voters of all ages, which makes me think he almost certainly lost the black and Latino middle class by wide margins too. (There were no race/income crosstabs in the national exit poll.) Do these look like numbers you’d expect to see of a candidate who’d been a true winner among middle-class voters?

The split for Obama on that question was 10/44/31 by comparison. My strong suspicion is that Romney won the $50,000+ group because he won big with whites and whites comprise more of that group on balance than they do of the < $50,000 group. And even if I’m totally wrong about all this and Stevens is right, what’s his point? Should the GOP take comfort in having won the middle class if it continues to lose in perpetuity because poorer voters are turning out in higher numbers?

Three, this is awfully ironic: “In the debates and in sweeping rallies across the country, Romney captured the imagination of millions of Americans. He spoke for those who felt disconnected from the Obama vision of America. He handled the unequaled pressures of a campaign with a natural grace and good humor that contrasted sharply with the angry bitterness of his critics.” Why is it ironic? Because it was Stevens, more than any other Romney advisor, who was blamed for being too slow to trumpet Mitt’s warmth and generosity early in the campaign, when Obama was busy defining him as a Gekko-esque ogre to ruinous effect. Remember this Politico piece in early October about Ann and Tagg Romney allegedly staging a “mutiny” over the campaign’s one-note anti-Obamanomics message? Quote:

Chief strategist Stuart Stevens — whom the family held responsible for allowing Romney’s personal side to be obscured by an anti-Obama economic message — has seen his once wide-ranging portfolio “fenced in” to mainly the debates, and the television advertising that is his primary expertise, according to campaign officials. Tagg Romney, channeling his mother’s wishes, is taking a much more active role in how the campaign is run…

In public and private, Ann Romney made no secret of her frustrations. Candidates’ spouses often think the husband or wife is getting a raw deal, and that they are better than the political caricature being drawn. But Ann Romney’s agitation was palpable: She felt the Obama campaign had dishonestly made her husband out to be something he is not, and was eager to see a more forceful response, especially one that played up his humanity. She wanted to humanize her husband; play up his charity; and showcase how in politics, business and life, he has tried to do the right thing, even when it was not popular.

She wanted, in other words, to show off his “natural grace and good humor.” Erick Erickson was hearing complaints about Stevens weeks before that along the same lines: “Frankly, he is the senior strategy guy and the strategy clearly is not working. All you need to know is that the GOP had three nights of prime time television coverage and the people whose kids Mitt Romney helped before they died got speaking slots outside of prime time in a convention designed to make people like Mitt Romney.” Stevens’s op-ed today is titled, “A good man. The right fight.” The real right fight would have emphasized much more heavily that Romney is, in fact, a good man.

Finally, I don’t know what to say about this:

When Mitt Romney stood on stage with President Obama, it wasn’t about television ads or whiz-bang turnout technologies, it was about fundamental Republican ideas vs. fundamental Democratic ideas. It was about lower taxes or higher taxes, less government or more government, more freedom or less freedom. And Republican ideals — Mitt Romney — carried the day.

He carried the day at the first debate, yes. Not so clearly at the other two. But in the wake of Project ORCA turning into the fail whale, how can any campaign vet dismiss “whiz-bang turnout technologies” that blithely? Obama appears to have won because he figured out a way to identify and then deliver droves of “irregular voters” to the polls on election day. Sophisticated data-mining and GOTV techniques were certainly key to that; given all the election fundamentals lined up against him, the fact that he nearly duplicated his electoral-vote take from four years ago makes me wonder if they were, in fact, decisive. Maybe we shouldn’t fault Stevens, Romney’s chief strategist, for overlooking the tech gap, but when the campaign is built on the alleged managerial genius of its candidate, someone has to be faulted. The “green-room crowd” assured us Romney wouldn’t get beat on nuts-and-bolts stuff; that was one of the biggest reasons to nominate him. And yet here we are, with the consolation of Republican ideals to get us through four more years.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

On Nov. 6, Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income.

Ignoring the turnout for a second, which is also skewed towards higher-income people, there’s a more basic point: $50,000 is also right around the median household income in the United States. So saying that you won every income bracket except those under $50,000 is kind of like saying, “Hey, we won among 1/2 of the American people! That other half? Ennnhhh… best you not ask!”

This is indicative of the 47%-style arrogance that permeated his campaign — its advisors, its surrogates, and its own nominee.

Start digging your trenches now. This thread is about to get ugly quick. I need a firing line here. Move the ammunition to the back. You there, start moving the cannons over here. I want a containment line held at 75 yards.

And they may have been right; for all his faults, I’m still not convinced that anyone else who ran last year would have done better than Mitt on November 6.

They finally finished counting the votes and according to Jim Geraghty, Romney now has half a million more votes than McCain. I honestly do not think that any of the candidates would have done any better..and I do not understand the need of pundits to beat up on Romney or his campaign after the fact. It would be nice just once if conservatives could refrain from the usual back stabbing. Let it go. So the guy does not want to complain about the campaign…who cares at this point?

They finally finished counting the votes and according to Jim Geraghty, Romney now has half a million more votes than McCain. I honestly do not think that any of the candidates would have done any better..and I do not understand the need of pundits to beat up on Romney or his campaign after the fact. It would be nice just once if conservatives could refrain from the usual back stabbing. Let it go. So the guy does not want to complain about the campaign…who cares at this point?

Terrye on November 28, 2012 at 5:26 PM

These guys made millions from failing the campaign. They deserve a little criticism.

But it is interesting to see the alternative approaches to the elephant in the room (or the elephant thrown out of the room, in this case), an embarrassing election loss.

Steve Schmidt: Save my own a** by turning on my clients and blaming them for the loss (both publicly and privately as an unnamed source for Game Change). The “not my fault; they were stinky” approach.

Stuart Stevens: Taking credit for designing a brilliant campaign that actually won the election. Except that it didn’t. The “not my fault; we were fabulous, Mitt was fabulous, everybody loved us” approach. Except that, again, they didn’t.

I give no points to Schmidt. He’s a sleaze who should never be trusted with another shekel of any candidate’s money. I give points to Stevens for having the audacity, even by Washington standards, to take credit for winning an election that his guy actually lost in a landslide.

In which alternate universe was Romney not supported by “D.C.’s green-room crowd”?

It did look a lot like Fox preferred their own employees as the candidate, Palin or Gingrich.

Fox never covered Romney’s events because the other media did not report on them, so it was not news. Carl Cameron followed along lounging in a trailer and asking the guys at CNN if they were covering any of it…If you were on the campaign trail you saw that not even Fox was doing any expository journalism, they were just repeating the MSM talking points and hoping Gingrich won.

In what universe were McCain’s results more impressive? The circumstances are also roughly the same, cratering economy, ridiculous spending etc.

The only primary difference is that you’re not directly coming off of Bush’s second term, although you’d be hard pressed to know that since Obama ran against Bush in 08 and 12.

John_Locke on November 28, 2012 at 5:29 PM

You answered your own question. In 2008, the economy worked completely against McCain-Palin as they represented the incumbent party. With the economy still in shambles, Obamacare an albatross around Obama’s neck, the Fast & Furious scandal, Solyndra, Benghazi, plus the further-back past of his administration (Beer Summit, BP Oil Spill, etc), he barely squeaked past McCain’s total — all of that with an expanding voter base and a 13-point swing of independents towards him.

Yeah, the accounts from Erickson and others about the GOP consultant class has been fascinating. It may be that the best thing to come out of this election is grassroots awareness of just how shady the campaign apparatus really is, which is to say nothing of the general shadiness of the GOP ‘elite’/RINO/non-true conservative/whatever label you want.

Sophisticated data-mining and GOTV techniques were certainly key to that; given all the election fundamentals lined up against him, the fact that he nearly duplicated his electoral-vote take from four years ago makes me wonder if they were, in fact, decisive.

It does kind of help when you’re the incumbent and have access to the names and addresses of every single person receiving any kind of federal assistance. Moreover, you have four years to complete the data mining and weeks of early voting to get the harvest in. Come on, get out and vote, Uncle Sugar needs your help or mean Monopoly guy will take away your goodies!

And, you also have the media.

Tough GOTV battle for any GOP candidate, esp. a challenger against a Dem incumbent.

Well, I have lots and lots of regrets. They left a lot of Conservatives in their homes not willing to get out and vote Republican. They left their star quarterback on the bench without letting her speak. They didn’t fight the PR garbage that Bronco Bamma threw at them. They were too far above the fray to fight anything. They just don’t understand and every single Republican consultant should be hanging their heads in shame and be doomed to unemployment for the rest of their lives. We are doomed as a country because they couldn’t understand the alure of Uncle Sugar handing out presents all year long. We are doomed because not one of them was creative enough to be able to fight this. Without a decent economy we cannot hand out these freebies and none of these people understand nor are they able to teach the unvarnished truth.

I guess, to comment further, return to your feelings of hope for America that Red Rock and the campaign made you remember, I hope when everyone feels better, those of you in Red States since I read there are 30 Republican Governors, will think of Romney’s promises and start fortifying your own cities and states.

I hope you will spend your charitable dollars for the true American things, teaching your children real American history, correcting the educations they are receiving at the hands of the unions forming republican educational non profits like the dems do, and sending programs to the schools. If your governor is a republican in a red state, FIX your state colleges, so that people will be educated. The unions are driving your kids astray, and you can save your own kids with homeschooling, or you can turn back your schools. Don’t hate education just because it has been corrupted by the liberals. Kick them out of your colleges. Do it with private money where you can, and with referendums on the schools and public outcry. There is no reason for Red State America to put up with the kind of commie stuff you hear is out there.

I hope you can remove from the local cable stations the kind of programing that leads kids astray and portrays a sick view of America, make people pay EXTRA for those things, your cable is locally controlled.

I hope you can put pressure on your governor to get something in place that he can demand the HHS Secretary accept as health insurance coverage that your state likes. The Obama Care law is outrageous, but it is also outrageous that only what THEY define is called coverage. A lot of people would like affordable catastrophic insurance and a health savings account that they can keep. All this is prohibited by Madame Secretary. Sick.

Maybe your state wants to build the Keystone Pipeline without Obama. Or try energy projects.

You think of the other things that make you free and let you keep your own money, and fortify your states.

You will have to think of ways for your Red State attorney General to enter the fray. Liberal Attorney’s General are always Suing for everything they want. It is sick, I am afraid we don’t compete…until health care, uh uh, litigious ways pre empt things you don’t want.

Define the label of humans/new born babies gender by the X and Y chromosomes in your state constitution. Bring on Science in the defense of unborn human life, with ultrasounds and making the abortion industry conform to Hospital health standards. Promote adoption with charitable funds. Promote marriage in what ways you can.

And maybe someone might ask Mitt Romney to come in and visit the Republican Governors Association..

John_ Locke …well at least you have the class to admit you were wrong … but all you had to do to predict Colorado was to look at 2010 in Colorado …Democrat Michael Bennet winning the U.S.Senate seat over tea party/GOP Ken Buck …even though Rasmussen had Buck up by 4

The obstacles Romney faced fighting an incumbent president who had been campaigning for 5 years and who had the support of 90% of the media, as well as academia and the entertainment industry were indeed formidable.

It’s unfortunate therefore that Sarah Palin prolonged the Republican Primary leaving Romney with insufficient time to overcome these obstacles. I don’t wish to be hard on Palin. She did offer ostensible support for Romney and perhaps she believed that more of her supporters would actually want Obama out of office. Judging by the comments of her supporters on this site it seems she was wrong about that too.

Democrats play for keeps. A lot of my fellow conservatives are rank amateurs when it comes to politics. Romney not good enough? Hilarious. Was there even one prominent Democrat who bashed Obama – as putrid a President as he’s been.

It wasn’t merely a poorly run campaign operationally speaking. It was a massively, metaphysically wrong campaign. Romney refused or otherwise failed to engage Obama and the media in a manner even close to the national peril or according to the manifestly putrescent evidence of the last four years. The campaign was a litany of criminally neglected opportunities. Of course how could self-satisfied and unself-aware twerps like Stevens possibly understand.

The obstacles Romney faced fighting an incumbent president who had been campaigning for 5 years and who had the support of 90% of the media, as well as academia and the entertainment industry were indeed formidable.

It’s unfortunate therefore that Sarah Palin prolonged the Republican Primary leaving Romney with insufficient time to overcome these obstacles. I don’t wish to be hard on Palin. She did offer ostensible support for Romney and perhaps she believed that more of her supporters would actually want Obama out of office. Judging by the comments of her supporters on this site it seems she was wrong about that too.

Democrats play for keeps. A lot of my fellow conservatives are rank amateurs when it comes to politics. Romney not good enough? Hilarious. Was there even one prominent Democrat who bashed Obama – as putrid a President as he’s been.

Well, I have lots and lots of regrets. They left a lot of Conservatives in their homes not willing to get out and vote Republican. They left their star quarterback on the bench without letting her speak. They didn’t fight the PR garbage that Bronco Bamma threw at them. They were too far above the fray to fight anything. They just don’t understand and every single Republican consultant should be hanging their heads in shame and be doomed to unemployment for the rest of their lives. We are doomed as a country because they couldn’t understand the alure of Uncle Sugar handing out presents all year long. We are doomed because not one of them was creative enough to be able to fight this. Without a decent economy we cannot hand out these freebies and none of these people understand nor are they able to teach the unvarnished truth.

BetseyRoss on November 28, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Can’t disagree with any of this except to comment on the bolded (my emphasis) part: If conservatives can’t drag their butts to the polls to vote against a lying marxist like Obama then they aren’t conservatives.

Sorry. Sometimes battles have to won slowly and they take awhile. Getting rid of Obama was one of them. It was very hard for those to plug their noses yet again to vote for someone that really wasn’t a conservative by any definition and they deserve our thanks.

As for the ones that didn’t get the appropriate motivation? In some ways they are no better than the Santa voters.

Can’t disagree with any of this except to comment on the bolded (my emphasis) part: If conservatives can’t drag their butts to the polls to vote against a lying marxist like Obama then they aren’t conservatives.

Sorry. Sometimes battles have to won slowly and they take awhile. Getting rid of Obama was one of them. It was very hard for those to plug their noses yet again to vote for someone that really wasn’t a conservative by any definition and they deserve our thanks.

As for the ones that didn’t get the appropriate motivation? In some ways they are no better than the Santa voters.

kim roy on November 28, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Really, Kim? Romney’s absolute failure to walk the walk of conservatism had nothing to do with his loss? You aren’t going to sway conservative voters to your cause of sustaining the GOP with that kind of recrimination.

Sorry. That’s what they’ve been telling us since Bush ’41 and that was 20 years ago. I’m not buying it anymore and it’s why I wrote in and voted down ticket like I should have in 2008. On the contrary, those like Ann Coulter who supported Romney from the beginning, to the exclusion of every other more Conservative candidate out there, are the ones who aren’t Conservatives and are just as bad as Obama supporters.

Really, Kim? Romney’s absolute failure to walk the walk of conservatism had nothing to do with his loss? You aren’t going to sway conservative voters to your cause of sustaining the GOP with that kind of recrimination.

gryphon202 on November 28, 2012 at 6:08 PM

While I’d love for Romney to have been ‘severely conservative’ like he claimed, if you are a conservative voter and you didn’t vote for Romney you’re an idiot.

Even the worst Romney administration, filled with RINOs galore, would have been far superior than Obama’s second term.

Oh and regarding Romney…Yeah, I guess he could’ve made it a higher priority to raise alarm on how bad things are concerning the debt and how Obama has and will only make it worse…He constantly made the point but maybe he could’ve made the situation seem even more dire…BUT

I doubt it would’ve worked. People either don’t actually think it’s that bad or urgent (idiots) or they still blame Bush more than Obama…(idiots).

The only realistic way to really beat an incumbent is a horrible economy…we mostly had that, the problem was people are still blaming the last Republican so we were probably F’ed from the get go with this dumbass electorate and the corrupt media making them dumber every damn day.

It’s unfortunate therefore that Sarah Palin prolonged the Republican Primary leaving Romney with insufficient time to overcome these obstacles. I don’t wish to be hard on Palin. She did offer ostensible support for Romney and perhaps she believed that more of her supporters would actually want Obama out of office. Judging by the comments of her supporters on this site it seems she was wrong about that too.

Democrats play for keeps. A lot of my fellow conservatives are rank amateurs when it comes to politics. Romney not good enough? Hilarious. Was there even one prominent Democrat who bashed Obama – as putrid a President as he’s been.

While I’d love for Romney to have been ‘severely conservative’ like he claimed, if you are a conservative voter and you didn’t vote for Romney you’re an idiot.

Even the worst Romney administration, filled with RINOs galore, would have been far superior than Obama’s second term.

John_Locke on November 28, 2012 at 6:12 PM

I voted for Romney. He still lost. Maybe we should field an actual conservative candidate next time — provided we can even find one in the ranks of the GOP anymore. They seem to have given up the fight now.

You aren’t going to sway conservative voters to your cause of sustaining the GOP with that kind of recrimination.

gryphon202 on November 28, 2012 at 6:08 PM

If these self proclaimed “conservatives” aren’t going to get to the polling place to vote against Barack Obama they are useless and ought to be ignored. They showed that with McCain and they have doubled down with Romney so… screw them.
They have effectively done more to ensue liberal governance then David Axelrod and helped to ruin the country.
McCain was to an extent “excusable”… We had fools like Beck talking about frogs jumping out of boiling water and Malkin saying we had to go through Carter to get to Reagan. This time around… there is just no excuse. None.

Really, Kim? Romney’s absolute failure to walk the walk of conservatism had nothing to do with his loss? You aren’t going to sway conservative voters to your cause of sustaining the GOP with that kind of recrimination.

gryphon202 on November 28, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Compared to Obama – an out and out marxist who lies and after Benghazi? You bet. What more does someone need? Romney, given all his faults, is a decent man who at least loves his country.

That, to me, is enough. Actually, the Putin comment was my “come to Jesus” moment. Obama is a man who will say or do anything to political ease and expediency. I repeat: That’s not enough for someone to vote *against*??? Seriously??

So what’s your plan? Take your ball and go home if your candidate loses the primary? That puts us in the same position.

I don’t understand what the alternatives are.

John_Locke on November 28, 2012 at 6:17 PM

The alternative is to, as per the political landscape in 1844, let the GOP wither on the vine so that conservatives can start over. Send those patronizing pseudoconservative bastards into the dustbin of history with the Whigs.

I voted for Romney. He still lost. Maybe we should field an actual conservative candidate next time — provided we can even find one in the ranks of the GOP anymore. They seem to have given up the fight now.

gryphon202 on November 28, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Yeah, I’d like to have a conservative candidate as well, but we can’t seem to win our primaries with them.

Temporizing bullsh*t. You win NOW because you have to win NOW. There is no alternative.

rrpjr on November 28, 2012 at 6:14 PM

I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear. I was talking about the 40+ year indoctrination of society to become mush heads who vote for Santa. You don’t think that’s going to take some serious effort and time? At least a decade before real gains are seen, imho.

While I’d love for Romney to have been ‘severely conservative’ like he claimed, if you are a conservative voter and you didn’t vote for Romney you’re an idiot.

John_Locke on November 28, 2012 at 6:12 PM
There it is! There’s the mentality that gave us Bush, Dole, McCain, and Romney.

Please continue. It pleases the GOPe.

Dunedainn on November 28, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Well it’s true, points are made in the primaries.
You either voted for Romney or you’re an idiot imo…It’s highly likely there is no real next time for making a point to even matter anymore. After 4 more years, 2 likely Justices added, all the deft/deficit becoming worse, the current electorate and the fact that influential people on the right will probably puss out and not aggresively go after the Media and Dems….It’s likely it’s all downhill from here… Happy Holidays!

So what’s your plan? Take your ball and go home if your candidate loses the primary? That puts us in the same position.

I don’t understand what the alternatives are.

John_Locke on November 28, 2012 at 6:17 PM

There was no candidate that was “mine”; I believe in movements and ideas, not people. Believing in people leads down a rather dark and frightening path: just ask the over 100 million people that lost their lives to governments in the last century.

His Royal Highness King Romney the Electable was not a part of my movement and did not share my ideas, so I did not vote for him. That and, personally, I’m rather tired of having my back pissed on and being told it’s raining by the party elites. It’s time for the GOP to go the way of the Whigs and for a new party to take its place. It’s the natural progression of things.